Case Law Details
DCIT Vs M/s Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh)
We find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(Appeals) who has deleted the additions made in the impugned case on finding that the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and assessment for the impugned year had not abated. The fact that no incriminating material was found has been admitted at Bar by the Ld. DR before us. The only document pointed out by the Revenue, we find, is a Balance Sheet that too pertaining to the succeeding year and which throws no light absolutely on the facts leading to additions made in the impugned year on account of share application money of Rs.50 lakhs received from M/s RSM Metals and M/s. Octomac Software Pvt. Ltd. The said document, we find, reflects only some unsecured loans taken by the assessee from the two companies that too in the succeeding year only and not in the impugned year. Therefore it is an admitted fact that no incriminating material was found during search conducted on the assessee. The fact that the assessment for the impugned year has not abated is also an undisputed fact. In view of the same we hold that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the additions made following the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Delhi high court in case of Kabul Chawla (supra), that no addition to be made in assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act in absence of any incriminating material, where assessments were not abated. The grounds raised by the Revenue to the effect that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla has been distinguished in the case of Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT in ITA No.357/2015 dated 27.10.2016, has been dealt with by ITAT in the case of Bharat Net Technology(supra), wherein it has been noted that the decision in the case of Dayawanti (supra |) had been discussed in the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT v/s Meeta Gutgutia Proprietor M/s. Fern ‘N’ Petals ITA NO. 306/2017 and others dated 25.05.2017, wherein it was observed that incriminating material was found in that case, however in the case of Meeta Gutgutia (supra), no incriminating material was found and hence additions made were not justified. The same has remained uncontroverted before us.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals)], dated 31.03.2017, relating to assessment year 2010-11.
2. The Department is aggrieved by the action of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unsecured loans of Rs.1 crore, as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
